Vol. 153 No. 3
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, line 7, to delete "24" and substitute "25".
The amendment is self-explanatory. What, if any, research or surveys were done before it was decided to have an extra two judges? The tabling of the amendment was partly prompted by what Senator O'Donovan said about the need for High Court judges in Munster. Why was it decided to have an extra two judges rather than an extra three or four?
The purpose of the amendment is to delete "24" and substitute "25". Section 2 increases the number of judges of the High Court, other than the President of the High Court, from 22 to 24. The Government has approved the appointment of one of these additional judges. I propose to hold vacant the second additional High Court position having regard to the progress of non Court work — for example, tribunals being conducted by High Court judges.
Given the considerable improvement in the position in the High Court, especially with regard to the hearing of personal injuries actions and criminal cases, I am satisfied that increasing the statutory limit on the number of judges of the High Court by three, which Senator Cosgrave proposes, is not warranted. I assure the Senator that I am anxious that there should be no adverse impact on the progress made in the High Court and I am satisfied that the Bill enables me to make the necessary provision in view of the two upcoming tribunals.
It is fair to say that there would have been a considerable, indeed almost an intolerable, amount of pressure on the High Court were it not for this legislation. It is certain that at least one additional High Court judge is required. The Government will fill one vacancy. The other vacancy, which the Government will be empowered to fill under this legislation, will be kept under review.
The High Court has made considerable progress in recent years with regard to the hearing of cases. Delays have been cut. It is the Government's objective to ensure that this momentum is maintained. In this regard I assure the House that if the appointment of the second judge provided for under the legislation is warranted, the Government will take immediate steps to fill that vacancy.
The Minister mentioned the question of the tribunals, in which judges have been involved full-time in the past. The Moriarty and Flood tribunals will sit after Christmas. Is the Minister satisfied that court sittings will not be unduly affected by these developments?
Problems arise with the centralisation of courts. For example, a number of the buildings in the Four Courts are not conducive to some of the work undertaken by the courts which sit there, especially where lengthy sittings are involved. There is a case to be made for locating courts in other areas, such as Cork and Galway.
I understand the purpose of the amendment. However, the number of judges in the High Court will be increased to 24. There is an immediate requirement for one extra judge. This is being met by this legislation, which also provides for a second additional appointment if that becomes necessary.
Judges move in circuit, for example, from Cork to Tralee, Limerick, Waterford and other towns, and the Presidents of the various courts decide where they will sit. However, a permanent High Court judge should sit in the south and possibly the west. In the meantime, the Minister's reply should be acknowledged. We should also acknowledge that five additional judges will be appointed within the next 12 months.
Senator Cosgrave wonders whether court sittings involving ordinary work will not be unduly affected. The purpose of this legislation is to address that. The Senator is also concerned about the impact of further tribunals to which judges have been assigned. This was a major consideration in the framing of this legislation.
The Government is anxious that the progress made by the courts with regard to eliminating delays should not be stopped or stymied. Accordingly, this Bill makes provision for the appointment of two additional High Court judges. It is believed that one of these judges is required immediately to ensure that the momentum of the High Court is not stopped. The legislation provides for the appointment of a second judge. I assure the House that I will make such an appointment if, as a result of unforeseen factors, it is required.
I move amendment No. 2:
in page 5, subsection (1), lines 3 to 5, to delete ", and, in a case to which paragraph (a) relates, shall not be eligible for re-appointment as presiding judge of that Court".
The provision in section 4 gives effect to the recommendation of Mrs. Justice Denham's working group that the term of office for the Chief Justice and the Presidents of the other courts should be limited to seven years and should be non-renewable.
Should there be an absolute ban on the re-appointment to presidency? I am aware of the very heavy workload which faces the President of any court. The provision is also in line with changes that have been made in other areas of public service. I understand that Secretaries of Departments are now appointed for seven year terms, as are county managers, although there is no absolute bar on re-appointment in such cases.
It is good to have turnover, new blood and new vision. However, is it necessary to exclude the possibility of re-appointment, especially in cases where a President of a court may have done a very good job in presiding over the courts service and where he or she is willing to carry on for a further term of office? Should it be the case that the law prevents that happening in any circumstance?
I thank Senator Gallagher for his contribution. The effect of the amendment would be to allow for the reappointment of a presiding judge who has completed a seven year term of appointment under this Bill. I mentioned in my speech that a key feature in moving to a seven year non-renewable term was to take account of the heavy administrative burden attaching to these judicial positions. The modern approach to terms of office and senior positions in public life is that they should be for specific and limited periods. This approach is reflected in the Bill in relation to court presidencies.
As I indicated, the introduction of seven year court presidencies gives effect to a recommendation made by the working group on the courts commission which was chaired by Mrs. Justice Denham. The working group examined the situation and concluded that in view of the heavy administrative workload that falls to be dealt with by court presidents, appointments to those senior judicial positions should be for a maximum non-renewable term of seven years. I share the working group's view in this matter. As the effect of the Senator's amendment would be to overturn that approach and make sections 4 to 12 of the Bill superfluous, I regret I cannot accept it.
Once the seven year term has been completed, the ex officio membership of the head of a higher court will not be terminated because to do so would interfere with the Judiciary by demoting a judge and would almost certainly be unconstitutional. The continuity of the judge concerned is maintained by him or her maintaining the ex officio status of membership of the court immediately above the court of which he or she is head. The seven year rule is desirable. Senator Gallagher referred to the heavy workload involved in heading up a court, which takes its toll.
The new arrangement will be beneficial for the Judiciary. While I accept it will mean that a good person will retire after seven years, this will be compensated for by the fact that a new and different approach will be adopted as a result of the change of presidency or in the office of Chief Justice. Just as life changes, courts also require change to keep pace with society. These solid measures will benefit our courts service. When the Courts Service (No. 2) Bill, 1997, is passed, the administration of the courts will be given to a new Courts Service. It is appropriate that the Courts Service will be accompanied by fixed terms for those who are in charge of our courts.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 8, before section 13, to insert the following new section:
13.—That provision be made for the proper level of secretarial assistance for the extra appointments made consequent on the enactment of this Act.
The Senator has a vested interest in this amendment.
This amendment is topical as this matter was raised yesterday. There is not enough staff available at the lower levels of the courts and in certain court offices. Judges often have difficulty getting things done as a result of heavy workloads. Senator Gallagher mentioned District Court clerks. They and many other people work hard providing backup in the courts.
I only want what the courts system is entitled to and what should be applicable to any semiState body or the Houses of the Oireachtas. Senator O'Donovan and his colleague from Dingle have been in the firing line of recent disagreements between both sides of the House. This is unfortunate, given the good relationship with Senator Tom Fitzgerald in the previous Seanad. I ask the Minister to ensure that adequate secretarial staff is provided for the courts to do whatever job needs to be done.
I thank you, a Chathaoirligh, for allowing me latitude on this important amendment which is relevant to the matters we discussed yesterday, particularly the transitional period for the new Courts Service. I ask the Minister to respond positively.
I am glad that the great respect shown on the sporting fields in the 1970s between Dublin and Kerry is being maintained between Senator Cosgrave and Senator Tom Fitzgerald. Perhaps this amendment is more appropriate to the Houses of the Oireachtas than to the courts. I understand that included in the cost of appointing two extra judges is the appointment of an usher, a chauffeur and a registrar. This means there is no need for extra secretarial staff. I suggest that Senator Cosgrave withdraws his amendment.
I appreciate the background to this amendment. While I fully support the concept of ensuring that High Court judges have appropriate secretarial facilities, this is not a matter which requires specific provision in the Bill. When an additional judge is appointed the necessary support and back up services are automatically made available. There is no need to provide for such matters in the Bill. It would be strange if such a provision was made in legislation only in respect of judges appointed under this Bill, in other words, that there would be provision in this Bill for secretarial staff and no provision in other legislation for other members of the High Court. Most people would agree that this would be inappropriate. In any event, the staff are provided. In these circumstances, I cannot accept the amendment.
